From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 27 08:14:04 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEB8237B401 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 08:14:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net (stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.188]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5390243FA3 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 08:14:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from user-2ivfjqj.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.247.207.83] helo=mindspring.com) by stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19Kg8k-0005GO-00; Tue, 27 May 2003 08:13:26 -0700 Message-ID: <3ED3804B.DC65E10A@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 08:12:11 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Evans References: <200305201025.30296.jlido@goof.com> <20030522093623.30915ed0.fearow@attbi.com> <20030527200208.L1802@gamplex.bde.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: b1a02af9316fbb217a47c185c03b154d40683398e744b8a4236ca15495f46656eccdae097b74a0f4667c3043c0873f7e350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gcc/libm floating-point bug? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 15:14:05 -0000 Bruce Evans wrote: > On Tue, 27 May 2003, Doug Rabson wrote: > > Even for special cases, it is hard to use -msse (or -msse2) with > > gcc-3.2.x since it doesn't always manage to 16-byte align the stack > > pointer. This makes it hard to declare local vector float variables > > safely. All of this appears to be fixed in gcc-3.3-prerelease at least. > > Isn't this "fixed" in gcc-3.any (gcc-3.2 on i386's at least) except > for signal stacks which are partly the kernel's responsibility? gcc-3.2 > still pessimizes stack alignment and invites bugs by doing it in > functions that don't need it and depending on callers doing it. Pretty sure it's still broke, even in 3.3. BTW: signal stacks are irrelevent; technically, you are not allowed to do floating point in signal handlers anyway. 8-). -- Terry